Bug#427559: [Pkg-cups-devel] Bug#427559: cupsd "run as user" changes in 1.2.11-2 breaks existing installations (no printing)
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On 6/5/07, Kurt Pfeifle <kurt.pfeifle@infotec.com> wrote:
>> Package: cupsys
>> Version: 1.2.11-2
>>
>> I'm reporting on behalf of
>> a customer who called me today because important functions on his test
>> printserver [running on Sid] broke after upgrading to CUPS 1.2.11-2;
>
>> He can not use that system any more for now, until he pays money to some-
>> one to fix everything (if that is at all possible; otherwise to migrate
>> it to a non-Debian distro).
>
> I was gonna answer point by point to your very detailed wishlist,
> except
Oh, I'm so sorry to have rubbed your skin the wrong way and to have made
you giving up on that noble intention!
> that I have serious issues with your report on one specific
> aspect:
>
> Your customer is running Testing on a production server that he needs
> to depend upon for everyday work.
No, you didn't read (or exactly memorize) what I wrote. I said it was his
*test* print server. Please check.
> As far as cretinism goes, this one
> wins the jackpot.
As far as "shooting quickly, but not precisely" and rudeness goes, this
one surely does not take the last place.
> There are two possible solutions to the above bug report's main issues:
>
> 1) Your customer must acquire the brains
Please stop calling anyone any names in a public, archived Debian forum.
> to realize that the only
> sensible release to run on production servers is Stable and he should
> therefore immediately downgrade to Etch.
Please realize a few things:
* it is his decision what he runs on his test printserver system(s)
* it is his decision even if he'd run Sid on his production printserver
system
* it is totally legal and valid to report bugs and submit wishlist items
against a Sid/unstable system irrespective of the fact whether these
were acquired on a "production" system
* you should be grateful to receive bug reports for Sid packages at all,
wether they originate from user test or from user production systems
* whatever Your Majesty may deem "sensible" for everyone, please do try
to understand that *sometimes* "Stable" packages just do not have the
features that someone needs in production, and that some people may have
a strong need to run "Unstable" test systems so that their production
systems running "Testing" or "Stable" can be early forwarned about
upcoming problems
* some people run "Testing" and "Unstable" *now* on their test and
"pilot" systems because they have a long term plan to migrate hundreds
of servers and 10s of thousands of workstations to Linux, away from a
proprietary system (and by the time of the migration they hope to use
a "Stable" or "Testing" version)
* you can debate with me in private mail when and when not it is appro-
priate to run Stable and/or Unstable; but this public thread started
with a bug report/feature request that describes a real problem; that
problem will make itself felt in Stable as soon as package makes the
transition; therefor it is completely irrelevant if the current feed-
back was won from a production or from a testing system.
Is that comprehensible?
> 2) As he nonetheless chose to run Testing, he is invited to fix his
> software to match our changes and help us streamline the transition to
> non-root user operation,
It is very revealing that you do not see this bug report as an occasion
to streamline your changes, Your Honor.
> by reporting on actual bugs, rather than on
> features which we deliberately chose to close uptream's patently
> broken security model.
I didn't see you participate in any of the detailed discussions that
took place on the upstream mailing lists about that particular topic;
not once on many occasions over the last 2-3 years when they happened;
therefore I do not deem you competent in uttering a verdict about
upstream having a "patently broken security model".
>> Moreover, while you introduced these changes (amounting to a de-facto
>> fork from upstream IMHO), you did not sufficiently document these. In
>> fact, the CUPS documentation you ship is still suggesting to the user
>> that his cupsd runs as root.
>
> The Debian changelog makes it abundantly clear that we're aware that
> this is gonna break some things and that Lenny's development cycle
> exists to iron things out.
Whatever.
Please document it also in the *user* documentation, that every user looks
at first: http://localhost:631/help/. This part of CUPS can be patched as
well, ya know? Please do not tolerate that this documentation contradicts
what behavior your source code patches along with your compile time changes
do change for the user.
Can you now say something to my requested changes, puh-leeze? Even if it
is "WONTFIX"?!
--
Kurt Pfeifle
System & Network Printing Consultant ---- Linux/Unix/Windows/Samba/CUPS
Infotec Deutschland GmbH ..................... Hedelfinger Strasse 58
A RICOH Company ........................... D-70327 Stuttgart/Germany
---
Infotec Deutschland GmbH
Hedelfingerstrasse 58
D-70327 Stuttgart
Telefon +49 711 4017-0, Fax +49 711 4017-5752
www.infotec.com
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Elmar Karl Josef Wanderer, Frank Grosch, Heinz-Josef Jansen
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart, Handelsregister HRB Stuttgart 20398
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail ist vertraulich und ist nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Falls Sie nicht der angegebene Empfänger sind oder falls diese E-Mail irrtümlich an Sie adressiert wurde, verständigen Sie bitte den Absender sofort und löschen Sie die E-Mail sodann. Das unerlaubte Veröffentlichen, Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Übermittlung komplett oder in Teilen sind nicht gestattet.Private Ansichten und Meinungen sind, wenn nicht ausdrücklich erklärt, die des Autors und nicht die der Infotec Deutschland GmbH oder deren verantwortliche Direktoren und Angestellte. Eine Haftung für Schäden oder Verlust von Daten durch den Gebrauch dieser Email oder deren Anhänge wird ausgeschlossen.
Weitere Informationen erhalten Sie im Internet unter www.infotec.com oder in jeder Infotec Niederlassung.
This E-Mail is for the exclusive use of the recipient and may contain information which is confidential. Any disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication, in whole or in part, is not permitted. Any views or opinions presented are those of the author and (unless otherwise specifically stated) do not represent those of Infotec Deutschland GmbH or their directors or officers; none of whom are responsible for any reliance placed on the information contained herein. Although reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present, all liability is excluded for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
For further information please see our website at www.infotec.com or refer to any Infotec office.
Reply to: